"Change is the experience of going from one
period of stability, through instability, to another period of stability. There
are a number of myths and misunderstandings concerning why change is resisted
that are worth considering.
Why does this distinction matter? If you are responsible for
a change initiative in your organization and believe it’s in the nature of
the change participants to resist the change, then you are a victim of their
nature. This assumption makes you hesitant or powerless to act on behalf of the
change. However, if you believe that resistance is due to situational factors,
you will focus on eliminating the environmental obstacles to change. Research
has found four situational reasons people resist imposed change:
+ Comfortable
with the way things are
+ Change
is viewed as a threat (fear of unknown)
+ The
costs outweigh the benefits
+ Cynicism
that the change will be mishandled by sponsors of the change.
Some scholars believe resistance requires breaking social habits. For one to 'break out' of entrenched patterns of behavior, they must experience disequilibrium, discomfort, and dissatisfaction.
Ultimately, for individuals to change they must perceive the risk of status quo to be greater than the risk of the new!
While reducing employee resistance to planned change has received the greatest attention of change scholars and practitioners, organizational reality has been found to consist of many change demands on employees that do not flow through formal change initiatives. Creating a healthy organization, one that is ecologically viable, is an overall organizational ability to renew itself, faster than competition and as the ecology demands it."
Making change missional and inviting employees to come along has a nice ring to it!
exerts from
No comments:
Post a Comment